FM4 - section B

“Experimental Films are often designed to make us see and experience the world differently”

Has this been your experience as a spectator of the films you have studied for this topic?

Unlike mainstream cinema experimental films are designed to challenge. They stretch the mind of the spectator to ideals and critiques of society that may have not been previously considered. As a new spectator to experimental cinema I found it difficult to conceptually grasp many of the films I watched, at least on first watch.

Early experimental film in some sense spanned from the French surrealist movement of the 1920’s. This movement questioned the conformity enforced on society through religion and politics, it came as a powerful critique of this and so surrealist films were produced with the intention of potentially enlightening its audience to such opinions. In attempting to do so, famous surrealist films by Luis Bunel such as Un Chein Andalou were inevitably banned. However now, they are not so much of a threat to society and can be legally shown. Whilst watching Un Chein Andalou it was clear that is was made with a disorientating intention, take for instance the first few shots include Bunel himself sharpening a razor, and as expectations of films go it is then expected that Bunel will shave. In fact the shot then cuts to an extreme close up of the slicing of an eyeball with this razor. This is immediately shocking, juxtaposing the two shots to emphasis this even more. This links with surrealisms attempt to question what is expected within the art of film and questioning it. The film lures the audience into a false sense of what the film is, expecting a more mainstream viewing was the intention of Bunel who starts the film with a credit sequence but also the words “Once Upon A Time...” this is typical of a structured narrative, making the following scenes more unpleasant and shocking. This was my first introduction to surrealist cinema and so came as much of a shock to me as I am sure Bunel indended. However as my experience with surrealist and other forms of experimental cinema expanded, so did my expectations. I became more open to forms of cinema and their intentions of questioning the world in which we live, it was something which liberated my viewing. Being able to understand the society and opinions that they represented allowed me to question this myself.

Another form of cinema that began to question the way I expected film to be put together was from Andy Warhol’s auteur perspective, although his work was seen as exceptionally lazy (at times getting others to direct for him) he intended to portray the ordinary. Unlike surrealism, Warhol’s work focuses on the reality of the world, he filmed things which were in his everyday occurrence. Including an 8 hour long static shot of a man sleeping, originally titled “Sleep.” Watching some of his films became incredibly uncomfortable to watch. I found this was the case much more with his later work in what has become to be known as “Trash Cinema” and although employed by Warhol the films were directed by Paul Morrissey. In “Heat”, there is a very lethargic narrative based loosely on Sunset Boulevard, known as Trash for its poor acting and film technique. The most memorable part of the film is the sex scene between a tenant and his landlord which is how he pays for his room. Sex scenes that are usually associate with films are romanticised, this one however is a static shot with diegetic sounds of all the noises involved making it difficult to establish whether what is being shown on the screen is in fact happening or merely acting. This made it incredibly uncomfortable to watch, and limited my liking for the new “reality” that Warhol was portraying.

However his work also includes 427, 3 minute screen tests of different individuals that really fascinated me. Visually they comprised of a person (sometimes two) in front of a set camera that was left running while the subject was asked to remain as still as possible. The project began as a representation of identity, influenced by wanted posters and ID cards the set up was balanced lighting and a centrally framed subject. However as the series progressed it turned into a more psychological question on the subjects, rather than asked to sit still and avoid smiling they were left to act voluntarily for the time period. They act as a portrait of the self, however rather than the anticipated still image it was a moving portrait. As well as progression in the concept of this work there was also a change in the lighting that was used, changing from balanced light to experimenting with low key and contrasting lights to effect the subject and measure how it would do so. I found these screen tests fascinating, psychologically they are eye opening but as a set are also an intriguing compilation of 1960’s American art scene and Warhol’s personal life.

The experimental film that had the most influence on me as a spectator was Simon Pummells Body Song, a feature length film comprising of archive footage from over 100 years. The film relies on carefully constructed montages each using footage from across the world, with an overall theme which depicts the human life, starting off from birth to the more drastic social and political consequences of life such as famine and war. Similarly to Warhol’s work this film was realistic, the stock footage used made this much more shocking for every clip that was shown, it was something that was real. This made it difficult to watch the montage of birthing scenes, some successful and some not so which takes place at the beginning of the film. This scene in the film began to make me question, along with Warhol’s Heat, just how much of mainstream cinema is a clear representation of the average experience. I understood how the cinema I was used to dramatised selected themes or at certain times limited them to avoid controversy, whereas experimental film does the opposite. In doing so is able to immediately shock a spectator.

City Of God Clips

Secion B - Experimental Cinema

In the films you have studied for this topic, discuss how far the production techniques and/or ways which they are presented challenge the spectator [35]

Developing a response to the variety of avante garde films within this topic has proved a challenge, I was forced to interpret obscure techniques and visuals which previously would have been spoon fed to me through mainstream cinema. Through the use of film techniques I was encouraged to discover my own perception of what film can be and its possible connotations.

The technique of discontinuity editing within Surrealist film Un Chein Andalou was something which I struggled with, the idea of surrealism is to argue against conformity. It was a French 1920’s movement that fought against society and how everything supposedly has its place and should remain there. This was the element of surrealism that I enjoyed, it’s concept. In order to portray this Bunel created a disorientating film, with many scenes that make no sense whatsoever. Take for instance the woman in one shot shutting the door behind the male character, with the next shot featuring him within the room. This is then followed by him fondling her whilst her clothes seamlessly disappear off her body and her breasts turn into buttocks. This was incredibly disorientating and therefore difficult to watch due to the unexplainable scenes. I was encouraging myself to like these scenes and not experience a challenge because of my enthusiasm for the concept however I felt nothing more than amusement for this sequence because of how unusual it was to watch.

As I found the underlying nature of surrealism intriguing a later Bunel film appealed to me more, The Phantom Of Liberty. Instead of use of unexplainable editing this film relies less on visuals and more on mise en scene and narrative. Within this film the characters sit around a table together whilst enjoying a toilet break, refusing to talk about such “disgusting” things such as food whilst on the toilet. In contrast to this the male character then leaves the toilet to ask a maid (holding a plate of toilet paper) where he might find the dinner table to eat in peace. This film shows a role reversal, one which I found inciteful and enjoyable to behold. This form of surrealism and questioning of conformity appealed to me much more, perhaps due to its techniques being similar to that of mainstream cinema as it involved a basic narrative and classic camera shots.

Another form of film technique I found challenging was discovered by director Stan Brackage. Instead of using the typical camera to shoot his film, instead he created it. Inserting moth wings, leaves and other naturalistic materials in between two sets of transparent splicing film for MothLight. This created visuals similar to continuous flashing paintings, which was also similar to when he painted on film for Stella. I found these difficult to appreciate, without a narrative or concept that I could latch onto, watching them seemed to get lost on me. The challenge I found with this was trying to create meaning, in comparison to surrealism which has no meaning purely for that reason Brackage’s films did not has a similar impact. Although I found them visually stunning as a compilation of images I could not comprehend a meaning behind them. Throughout watching and interpreting mainstream cinema I have become used to quickly understanding how I should be feeling about a scene having all the comforts of Hollywood cinema lost for these films proved a challenge to explore my own personal response and uncover a reason for them.

One of my favourite explorations of avante garde cinema, along with Andy Warhol’s compilation of screen tests, was 1969 film Necrology. It consists of two major parts, the first, an 8 minute static camera of people rising into what could be interpreted as the heavens. It turns out that this was in fact the director filming people descending down an escalator and playing it in reverse. The use of this technique allowed much more interpretation to the shot and because of this I did not find it as much of a challenge to enjoy as others. However its intentions did not become fully clear until the second part began. This was unlike anything I have previously seen, the most memorable part of the film was in fact the credits. Unlike the film itself in which you saw dozens of faces with no understanding of a back-story behind them, the credits gave this. It lists the cast members each with their own description some of which were incredibly funny and a deep insight into the person i.e. Woman with Canker sore in her left cheek. The part I found challenging of this film was to rethink my interpretation of the film after the credits had ran. I did this after seeing “Standish Lawder” the director, credited as a cast member on the escalator. I had previously assumed the film questioned the reality, in a similar way to Warhol, by portraying the reality. Once I found Lawder was credited, this was not the case; the shots must have been staged. This created a whole other interpretation, and proves just how polysemic some of the experimental texts can be, had I only seen the beginning section of the film I would have been content with my interpretation which was not altered till the end.

Experimental cinema proved a challenge, even with the films I enjoyed there was difficulty in understanding how the choices of production techniques were used and how they complemented the potential meaning. It has proven to me, that whether or not a film is understood and accepted by everyone, it should be appreciated: there are no guidelines accept the sociable norm as to how a film should be constructed and accepted.

FM4 Section C - Fight Club

Explore some of the ways in which placing your chosen film within a broader critical framework has helped to develop your appreciation and understanding of specific sequences.

I have found fight club to be an intriguing film to discuss in terms of critical approaches, although it has also allowed me to come to a conclusion that not just one form of critical analysis can be used to explore each sequence.

For instance the opening credits of the film suggest a level of psychoanalysis will be needed to understand the film, this is due to the CGI effects from within the brain. The camera follows the nerves within a persons (who is later revealed to be the narrator) head, with sparking synapses; suggesting that the film will uncover some form of mental dysfunction. However this is not explored again until the latter part of the film.

Instead the initial establishing sequences from the suggest a less psychoanalytical approach is needed and something such as the crisis of masculinity can be used to explain these. The men in the film have become overpowered by consumerism, trading in their masculinity for a more feminine generalisation. This is all presented during one scene within the narrators apartment, there is a pan across the room showcasing his furniture alongside their catalogue descriptions. Jack then explains how he has become a “slave to the ikea nesting instinct” showing just how much dependency his character and males within society have become on consumer products usually associated with female behaviour. During this scene the narrator also tells us, whilst on the toilet, that where he used to read pornography now he reads furniture catalogues. The pornography represents a masculine trait of sexual desire the fact that the narrator seems to have lost this in replace of furniture magazines is again a clear link to the loss of masculinity within society. However it is possible that this could be linked to Freud’s psychoanalytical theory of the self, and how the narrator feels the need to suppress his sexual desire (the ID) in order to fit in within society. Without knowledge of the crisis of masculinity it would have been difficult to pinpoint a reason behind Fincher’s choice of mise en scene and dialogue, understanding this has enabled me to delve much deeper into the potential meanings of the text, and potentially debate it as being polysemic.

As the film progresses the crisis of masculinity ceases to become a problem, or perhaps is just overridden by further critical approaches which can be discussed. I have found it very useful applying Freudian theory to particular scenes once Tyler Durden has been introduced and believe it to have stemmed from the crisis of masculinity. The mise en scene of the house is used as a visual metaphor for the narrators brain, linking towards the sparking synapses in the opening credits. The mise en scene of the house is dull and dreary, it lacks consumerised nature of his old apartment and only contains the bare minimum. “It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything” is a quote from Tyler Durden which proves an ideology of the film: once Jack has lost the consumerism from his normal life as shown through his apartment he is able to become “free” presented in the minimalist mise en scene of Tyler’s house.

However, this “freedom” comes at a cost, following Freud’s theory Tyler represent the ID, the unconscious desires. Once Jack has lost his apartment on consumer products Tyler is introduced, he takes over Jack’s life, and his brain. We can see this in the house whilst Tyler and Marla are having sex. Jack is working out, he is letting his ID fulfil his desires in the floor above him and literally in the back of his mind. Whilst we hear Marla’s diegetic orgasms the ceiling falls down next to Jack, the house is falling apart and so is his brain. Without a psychoanalytical approach to this scene or potentially any of the others featuring Tyler Durden it becomes very difficult to appreciate what he represents and his affect on the narrator.

Due to the polysemic nature of the text it is difficult to apply one critical approach to the entire film and so is necessary to consider these within particular sequences. The film only superficially covers each idea is explores, including others not I have not discussed such as Marxism and Post Modernism, and so it is useful to understand more than one approach when exploring the film. This has been a criticism of the film; that it lacks substance within the critiques it makes on society, however through my analysis I have personally come to the conclusion that this is Fincher’s way of explaining to his audience how the American society of the time is filled with such an extensive amount of problems.